It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida to be next battleground for Intelligent Design?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

So I think while we may not have been 'shepherded' the ID concept and possibly others are a reaction to the loss of religion as the major influence in people's lives.

So exactly yeah...save I would change the term shepherding...


*pondering*

"shepherding" was a pretty important word in that formulation, though


One thing that shepherding would allow is for the possibility of the third route – existence of God/spirit and truth of scientific method and theories as applies to the material world.

Then you get the PTB alternately pushing people to reject science or to reject religion - polarization with all its attendant opportunities for furthering a hidden agenda.




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


I dislike shepherding as it implies too much intention...it's functional but doesn't account for, in my opinion, what I percieve to be more of a reactionary mindset.

100 years ago TPTB couldn't predict computers and instantaneous global communication (at least I would be floored if they did)...

Hence they wouldn't have been able to predict the preoccupation and integration of science and technology and as well couldn't have seen the world's religions clash.

But I like your thought on the polarization. It makes me more amenable to the shepherding concept...

For the record - even if I am way off target, I love pondering the motivations behind social trends and 'engineering'...


And ID has risen fairly quickly to the rank of major social issue, thus making it an interesting case...

Edit for spelling.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by MemoryShock]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Evolution by means of natural selection( evolutionary theory as we understand it today) is about how life diversifies. It is not about how life arose.


I think you may be saying this just because you read it somewhere and can't think of anything better.

To me the quotation is ridiculous on its face.

How can anyone who is seriously looking into this arbitrarily claim that suddenly, say at point 'A' in history, natural selection was operative, but prior to 'A' it doesn't matter whether it was or not?

This is just silly. If natural selection was true at point 'A' then it was also true immediately prior to 'A', et cetera, et cetera, all the way back to the 'primordial soup.'

To say that life somehow was present immediately prior to 'A' independent of natural selection is equivalent to claiming it was 'created.'

You can't have it both ways.

The whole point of Darwin's conjecture is that the 'natural selection' we see evident in the fossil record implies that natural selection can be traced all the way back to the primordial soup. This isn't philosophy, it's mathematical logic.

Any other explanation implies that life was somehow 'created' prior to 'A,' at which point 'natural selection' then became operative.

Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is just that, the conjecture that all species had a common origin, which by mathematical induction brings us back to the soup ...

Any other view is totally inconsistent, regardless of how many 'experts' are out there doing whatever they can to obfuscate this one very simple point.



wow," because i read it somewhere and can't think of anything better"?, why don't you just come right out and say i'm an idiot? That's what evolution through natural selection IS. from the first celled organsims to today. not how the primordial soup was created or where it came from. there is no better definition. i can't put it any differently or any better than that. i don't think anyone can.

you're asking that we make evolution say something that it doesn't. you want to argue where the primordial soup came from go argue with some abiogenesis experts. this thread is about evolution through natural selection, not where the building blocks for life came from.

edit to add: I've re-looked over the thread, and i don't see anyone else besides yourself claiming i'm describing evolutionary theory incorrectly. I'd like to ask the other posters in this thread to say so if i am. What I've posted in this thread and many others on this topic, is my understanding of evolutionary theory.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by optimus primal]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
For the record - even if I am way off target, I love pondering the motivations behind social trends and 'engineering'...


And ID has risen fairly quickly to the rank of major social issue, thus making it an interesting case...


It's fascinating stuff, belief and its manipulation


The speed of the rise of ID, along with the "mishmash" nature of it that I alluded to earlier, actually makes me think that in this case you're right – it's a reactionary tactic rather than a part of any plan all along. I'm even kind of inclined to see it as exactly what it seems to be – a desperate attempt to get creationism into the science curriculum.

But I think the idea of someone using both sides of the science vs religion debate to polarize and control is pretty compelling.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
But I think the idea of someone using both sides of the science vs religion debate to polarize and control is pretty compelling.


So do I. I wonder if an epic analysis of social trends and a timeline of social issues by decade could lend support to the idea...

Finding TPTB through social reverse engineering...that appeals to me for some reason...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain

I think you may be saying this just because you read it somewhere and can't think of anything better.
or maybe becasue it is accurate

evolution is not reliant on abiogenesis, it cares nothing for HOW LIFE GOT HERE

if God decided to make simple single cell organisms and sprinkle them around it still evolved by means of natural selection to the diversity of life forms we currently see

Evolution stands or falls on its own merits of evidence testing and observations, he may have read it somewhere and repeated it i dont know but what he is reading is apparently of a much higher caliber then your reading material on the subject



How can anyone who is seriously looking into this arbitrarily claim that suddenly, say at point 'A' in history, natural selection was operative, but prior to 'A' it doesn't matter whether it was or not?


this is becasue you arnt reading the same material he is, natural selection can only effect self replicating molecules that are subject to enviromental factors and competition for resources to increase or limit its ability to replicate

before those self replicating molecules occured there was nothing for natural selection to work upon, its that it wasnt operative there was simple nothing for it to operate with, contruary to idiotic opinion rock arnt able to self replicate and do not compete against each other so there fore are not subject to natural selection


To say that life somehow was present immediately prior to 'A' independent of natural selection is equivalent to claiming it was 'created.'
ive just read back through the posts and ya know im struggaling to find where he says this?

no where do i see him state life existing prior to natural selections influence, he does differenciate between abiogenesis as the origin of life and evolution as the diverification of species once life has arisen.....

care to explain how you got 57 from 1+2?


The whole point of Darwin's conjecture is that the 'natural selection' we see evident in the fossil record implies that natural selection can be traced all the way back to the primordial soup. This isn't philosophy, it's mathematical logic.
funny Darwin had no idea about the primordial soup that came much later, are you claiming he was a precog?

what Darwins work hints at i all life originated from one or a small handful of very very simple organisms, he again makes no statement or gives no hints as to where those organism came from


Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is just that, the conjecture that all species had a common origin, which by mathematical induction brings us back to the soup ...
no it brings it back to 1 ofr a small handful of living organisms, only when combined with abiogenesis can you reach that conclusion, and were not talking about abiogenesis in this thread are we?


Any other view is totally inconsistent, regardless of how many 'experts' are out there doing whatever they can to obfuscate this one very simple point.


the very simple point that your confusing a theory and a hypothesis sticking them together and concluding one is dependant on the other when they are not?

disprove gravity? evolution till happens
diprove thermodynamics? evolution till happens
disprove the big bang? evolution still happens
disprove abiogenesis? evolution still happens
disprove atomic theory? evolution till happens
diprove evolution? evolution stop happening

p.s. if you really think a cientifc theory/hypothesis requiring it to be flasafiabe has anything to do with proving a negative or negative proof then you really should steer clear of scientific based debates and threads

bieng flasifiable does not mean you fake it with false data, does not mean requiring negative evidence or being able to prove a negative, it means it is able to be proven false through evidence and testing if it does turn out to be incorrect

spontaneous generation was falsifiable becasue they tested it and it was proven false so dropped

steady state universe hypothesis was falsifiable becasue it was tested and didnt match the data and observation of the universe so was proven false

cant test god did it, so it is NOT falsifiable and cannot enter the realms of science becasue they are untestable and rely on supernatural factors which have not and cannot be observed measured or tested

and if your about to claim evolution is not flaifiable so not a valid theory you should go read origin the whole of chapter 6 is dedicated to highlighting problems and flaws in his original idea, even giving people the means to prove him wrong no one managed it, and each of those flaw and problems with our better understanding have filled the gaps in his knowledge



[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
This is a very iffy subject, but in all honesty, if we evolutionists are gonna be hammering down, the "there is no god when it comes to how we became man" theories, then IMO we should atleast be discussing the alternative theory.



The other theory has absolutely no scientific basis. No peer reviewed papers have survived, they have been utterly eviscerated on every argument. They just choose to ignore the evidence.

Also evolution doesn't need to be separate from god. You can believe in both and just think that god set up evolution. I don't understand why the Intelligent Design movement, or should we just call it creation movement, is so threatened when evolution mentions nothing of god or even how life started.

Also to the creationists here tying evolution in with the big bang. Lets please keep these theories seperate as they are nothing to do with each other.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I think that too many people are missing the point in this discussion.

Look, you are entitled to believe what you want. If you choose to believe in ID then that is fine. However, Intelligent Design is not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. ID is a RELIGIOUS theory and should thus be discussed in a RELIGIOUS setting. ID should not be discussed in SCIENCE class. The discussion of ID in a science class degrades the entire scientific process.

Also, if you are going to "teach" the christian creation story, shouldn't it be required, per the constitution, that we also "teach" the creation story of every other religion? Failing to do so would represent an obvious "law respecting an establishment of religion" and thus be ILLEGAL per the constitution.

Before you know it, instead of kids learning...huh, science in science class, they will be learning about all the different creation stories from the literally thousands of world religions thus making science class a class about religion and not science.

The really sad thing is if you were to tell the christian religious right in this country that in order to teach their creation story it was also necessary to teach the creation stories of other religions, they would quickly fold on this issue. The last thing they want is other religions competing with them for converts.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Ok ID believers, riddle me this. Why don't you have sex with 11 year olds? 2,000 years ago 11 was middle age, you would have been married and had children by then. But as the human life span gets longer, the longer it takes for us to reach physical maturity. When you hear stories of kids hitting puberty at 8 or 9, they are not developing early, they are devolping on time, if it was 2,000 years ago. So ID believers, have sex with an 11 year old OR you agree that humans have evolved. One or the other. Either have sex with an 11 year old or burn in hell for following evolution.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Also, if you are going to "teach" the christian creation story, shouldn't it be required, per the constitution, that we also "teach" the creation story of every other religion? Failing to do so would represent an obvious "law respecting an establishment of religion" and thus be ILLEGAL per the constitution.



You know i've made that same argument in many other threads and the response i usually get is "Those other religions are ridiculous" or "no one follows that religion anymore". You are quite correct that if we teach ID, which is mostly supported with the bible, then we should teach every other single creation myth. From the big trinity religions to the smaller ones. Native american myths, greek myths, roman gods and goddesses, they're all creation theories.

So why is it we're only being asked to teach the christian viewpoint? Don't these people see the hypocrisy? They're asking for both sides of the argument to be told, yet there are many sides depending on which religion you follow.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
I think that too many people are missing the point in this discussion. ID is a RELIGIOUS theory and should thus be discussed in a RELIGIOUS setting.

Not necessarily. Intelligent design means intelligent design. It doesn't mean that 'god' did it. Nor does it need religious overtones.

There are some people who hypothesise that modern humans, us, could have been intelligently designed by Alien manipulation. Genetic modifications to older species of Homo-X to kick start us to a higher order.

Is there a complete and accountable fossil record that links the chain of Generic Ape to Homo-X to Homo-Sapiens? I'm not a specialised biologist, so I don't know.

Of course, if we were designed by Aliens, then who designed/created/evolved the Aliens?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
I think that too many people are missing the point in this discussion. ID is a RELIGIOUS theory and should thus be discussed in a RELIGIOUS setting.

Not necessarily. Intelligent design means intelligent design. It doesn't mean that 'god' did it. Nor does it need religious overtones.
designed/created/evolved the Aliens?


Yes, yes it does. In fact the book, what's it called, the one with Pandas, that the ID people like to use so much... Said Creation. But then the ID people said that schools wouldn't allow it if it said Creation so went through and replaced it with ID. Except if you actually go through it you can find where they missed a Creation here and there. ID is just the church's way of getting access to kids and brainwash them. Gee, wonder why the church would want access to little boys.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Afrosamurai]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
You know i've made that same argument in many other threads and the response i usually get is "Those other religions are ridiculous" or "no one follows that religion anymore".


This does not surprise me in the least. When two, or multiple, sides go to war it is essential that each side works to dehumanize the other to gain willing recruits to fight. Essentially that is what the respondents you mentioned are doing. They are trying to dehumanize or degrade the validity of the opposing viewpoints, in this case competing religious beliefs.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Not necessarily. Intelligent design means intelligent design. It doesn't mean that 'god' did it. Nor does it need religious overtones.
it doent need them but ity has them becasue it was designed by religeon to trojan horse religeon into the classroom, once in it can start altering its facade into a more recognisable creationism or once the holes there they can do the same to puh straight up creationism in along side

it doesnt have to be but it was is and forever will be based on religeon,

the side support from the directed panspermia brigade is only useful until it hits the class room then it drop into the who designed the designer argument, cant be evolution as its there a a competitor, if they can evolve so could we so ID becomes superfulous again until some evidence appears for it,

with only a finite age of the universe sooner or later one of those designers has to be older then the univere it self and if he is older then the universe they very well could have designed the whole universe ... and who do you think that could be? aliens? or GOD

ID doesnt answer question it uses congnative bias and infinity reduction to proclaim god did it directly or via aliens which was his plan all alongand call them angels or eloheme or anunaki or some other bronze age name from superstition) and so religeon gets into science class


Is there a complete and accountable fossil record that links the chain of Generic Ape to Homo-X to Homo-Sapiens? I'm not a specialised biologist, so I don't know.
ummm no .... we kind of have to many so were not sure 100% which is on which branch and when branches divide etc etc

you have homo sapien sapien then homo sapien then homo erectus then it starts getting messy when you look earlier then this, everytime we think we have a handel on it somthing news found or somthing all ready found gets re-evaluated and it all gets interesting again



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
What I can't understand is why the two sides cannot coexist ......

who's to say evolution could not be a product of intelligent design ?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by americandingbat
But I think the idea of someone using both sides of the science vs religion debate to polarize and control is pretty compelling.


So do I. I wonder if an epic analysis of social trends and a timeline of social issues by decade could lend support to the idea...

Finding TPTB through social reverse engineering...that appeals to me for some reason...


I agree and too find it quite interesting.

IMO, it boils down to the old adage "divide and conquer." That is essentially what they are trying to do.

I recently was watching the Michael Moore documentary "Sicko" and an American citizen living in France said something I thought may have some bearing. She said that in France the government is afraid of the people whereas in the US, the people are afraid of the government. I found this statement to be completely accurate. By dividing our population around social issue such as the one in this thread or abortion, or any of the many, many other issues that seem to dominate the political debate, the PTB are essentially dividing us so as to conquer or control us.

If and when the American people rejoin as a force to be reckoned with, we will once again have a government that is afraid of the people. This is something the PTB are trying, rather effectively I might add, to prevent.

On a side note, I am in no way advocating some violent revolt to bring about this social change. In France and England the people assert their power over the government through massive protest. It is not uncommon to see protests by the masses that total more than 100K people. Sadly, though Americans were the first to show the world the power of this technique, it is something we have forgotten.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by EliteLegends
What I can't understand is why the two sides cannot coexist ......

who's to say evolution could not be a product of intelligent design ?


Because that is not what is said in the Bible.


I too have made similar statements on other threads on this site and, per my belief structure, evolution is a product of God's grand design. Really, except in the most extreme sects of Christianity, religious beliefs and evolution do coexist. It is only over the last decade or so that the extreme forms of Christianity have become the mainstream.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


ID and evolution can not co-exist simply becasue they try to solve the same thing differently

Evolution and Religeon can co-exist, its called theistic evolution it takes what science has shown to be accurate and sees that as the way god intended it to happen becasue god made everything and thats how it happened, so there fore god started the bigbang stars formed blew up reformed planets formed life started things evolved yada yada yada

becasue thats how god wanted it done he used natural processes to get what he wanted because he wasnt dumb and useless enough to screw it up originally and having to keep comming back poking proding and fixing thing he messed up at the start and having to special build things becasue he couldnt figure out how to make it occur naturally like ID proclaims

ID bad science and a lousy deffintion of what God is capable of

theistic evolution give it a try all the cool christians are (thats about 80% of the worlds chritians btw) en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
The thing is you see...
I am rather impressed and am thoroughly enjoying the ongoing debate. As per my previous post, you know where I stand, but it doesn't mean that I don't love a good, well-researched ATS ID/evolutionary squabble.
However, I don't think presenting these two sides of this arguement in a Florida public school setting will be nearly as intelletually stimulating. Those teachers are lucky to have their students show up.
Teach them the bare minimum, the SCIENCE, and hopefully the ones who actually care enough will do their own research, and come to ATS to join the next ID/Creationism/Darwin-bashing/Religion in Schools EXTRAVAGANZA!!!!


sty

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Do not worry guys, you will bring biologists/doctors from India, they are very good!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join